4 ms·

My argument is that Aristotle never dies out. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_(Photius) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_(

by iorrus 9y ago

My argument is that Aristotle never dies out. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_(Photius) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliotheca_(Photius) Lots of emperors were very learned: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_VII https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_VII And there were philosophers throughout that time period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Psellos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Psellos What makes you think Aristotle was neglected?

boomboomsubban 9y ago
The Bibliotheca shows my point, the Roman Christians largely kept knowledge they considered important, and this didn't include Aristotle. The table of contents is full of Christian and Roman subjects, with only a few ancient Greeks mentioned. Aristotle is absent. The neoplatonic views of Christianity during the period are well known, and several hundred years of that lead to Aristotle being neglected.
- iorrus 9y ago
  If you read it Aristotle is frequently cited e.g codex 242 and 249. Having read Aristotle was basically assumed at the time and hardly worth mentioning in the TOC of a book of this sort. See: http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/photius-dr-nick-trakakis-2011 http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/photius-dr-nick-trakakis-2011 Interesting article: http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/11951/4059 http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/11951/4059 Also look at the works of Arethas who was active around this time. The works of Aristotle were frequently cited throughout Byzantine history. Lots of neoplatonists wrote commentaries on Aristotle so it's not like they're mutually exclusive.
  - boomboomsubban 9y ago
    2/3rds of the book has a public domain translation, "frequent" is a stretch. Your unsourced article says he was ignored for being in wide circulation, but there are multiple works discussing Plato. Did you read that article? Again, it agrees with everything I'm saying. Sixth century authors, five centuries with almost nothing, then a return. Even the sixth century mentions they were unfamiliar with Aristotle's actual works, except maybe reading "Categories," the only work I can find Photius or Aretha's commenting on. And it mentions repeatedly that Plato had dominance, even saying Aristotlean views were near heresy at times.
    - iorrus 9y ago
      We are reading the same article and getting completely different readings. Both those links were written by professors in this exact area. One states the Aristotle was in wide circulation, the other states that photius likely wrote textbooks for use in schools on aristotle so he was hardly neglected. Did you read about Arethas? We even have knowledge of Photius's textbook on Aristotle's topics. There were no new commentaries on Aristotle for a long time but that doesn't mean he was forgotten. Notice also throughout all these links that it is unanimous that after Islamic invasion learning in general went into quick and rapid decline. Good article: http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/byzantine-philosophy http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanac...
      - boomboomsubban 9y ago
        Being a professor in that area doesn't mean your word is absolute truth, this topic has been full of bias from the beginning with Christians reluctant to admit Islamic influence. Adding in that "learning in general went in to decline," an absurd fantasy that none of your sources back up, means that's probably the basis for this disagreement. So Photius wrote something on "Topics," we're now at 1/3rd of Aristotle's principle collection on Logic. Nothing about his further philosophical ideas.
        iorrus 9y ago
        Did you read the last link I cited? It mentions many Byzantine philosophers and their links to Aristotle. There is no serious suggestion that Aristotle ever died out in Byzantium or that foreign intervention was required to rediscover him. Knowledge of Aristotle is assumed in most of the primary sources from that time. You must remember that all the original church fathers quoted and discussed Aristotle, so the Byzantine theology made frequent reference to him. He was part of the religious canon. Aristotle worship was wrong anyway, the Byzantines and Avicenna were right to concentrate on Plato and not the inferior Aristotle. Most of which was incorporated into early Christian theology, Aristotle was rightly marginalised but that doesn't mean he was forgotten.

by iorrus 9y ago

boomboomsubban 9y ago

The Bibliotheca shows my point, the Roman Christians largely kept knowledge they considered important, and this didn't include Aristotle. The table of contents is full of Christian and Roman subjects, with only a few ancient Greeks mentioned. Aristotle is absent. The neoplatonic views of Christianity during the period are well known, and several hundred years of that lead to Aristotle being neglected.

iorrus 9y ago
If you read it Aristotle is frequently cited e.g codex 242 and 249. Having read Aristotle was basically assumed at the time and hardly worth mentioning in the TOC of a book of this sort. See: http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/photius-dr-nick-trakakis-2011 http://neoskosmos.com/news/en/photius-dr-nick-trakakis-2011 Interesting article: http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/11951/4059 http://grbs.library.duke.edu/article/download/11951/4059 Also look at the works of Arethas who was active around this time. The works of Aristotle were frequently cited throughout Byzantine history. Lots of neoplatonists wrote commentaries on Aristotle so it's not like they're mutually exclusive.
- boomboomsubban 9y ago
  2/3rds of the book has a public domain translation, "frequent" is a stretch. Your unsourced article says he was ignored for being in wide circulation, but there are multiple works discussing Plato. Did you read that article? Again, it agrees with everything I'm saying. Sixth century authors, five centuries with almost nothing, then a return. Even the sixth century mentions they were unfamiliar with Aristotle's actual works, except maybe reading "Categories," the only work I can find Photius or Aretha's commenting on. And it mentions repeatedly that Plato had dominance, even saying Aristotlean views were near heresy at times.
  - iorrus 9y ago
    We are reading the same article and getting completely different readings. Both those links were written by professors in this exact area. One states the Aristotle was in wide circulation, the other states that photius likely wrote textbooks for use in schools on aristotle so he was hardly neglected. Did you read about Arethas? We even have knowledge of Photius's textbook on Aristotle's topics. There were no new commentaries on Aristotle for a long time but that doesn't mean he was forgotten. Notice also throughout all these links that it is unanimous that after Islamic invasion learning in general went into quick and rapid decline. Good article: http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/byzantine-philosophy http://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanac...
    - boomboomsubban 9y ago
      Being a professor in that area doesn't mean your word is absolute truth, this topic has been full of bias from the beginning with Christians reluctant to admit Islamic influence. Adding in that "learning in general went in to decline," an absurd fantasy that none of your sources back up, means that's probably the basis for this disagreement. So Photius wrote something on "Topics," we're now at 1/3rd of Aristotle's principle collection on Logic. Nothing about his further philosophical ideas.
      - iorrus 9y ago
        Did you read the last link I cited? It mentions many Byzantine philosophers and their links to Aristotle. There is no serious suggestion that Aristotle ever died out in Byzantium or that foreign intervention was required to rediscover him. Knowledge of Aristotle is assumed in most of the primary sources from that time. You must remember that all the original church fathers quoted and discussed Aristotle, so the Byzantine theology made frequent reference to him. He was part of the religious canon. Aristotle worship was wrong anyway, the Byzantines and Avicenna were right to concentrate on Plato and not the inferior Aristotle. Most of which was incorporated into early Christian theology, Aristotle was rightly marginalised but that doesn't mean he was forgotten.